| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-071 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-23 |
South Africa: Ministry of Trade |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Raw sugar can only be exported through a single channel |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Africa reported that all excess raw sugar is exported by SASA on behalf of producers simply to safeguard on logistical costs etc to minimize the distortive effects of the world market. The manner in which it is done in SA does not conform to what is normally referred to as single channel - the implications of single channel can be much broader. |
|
|
NTB-000-072 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2009-07-23 |
South Africa: Ministry of Trade |
Malawi |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
South African Government has monopoly in the trading of basic food commodities. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Africa reported that apart from WTO compatible SPS regulations there are no other technical barriers, including quantitative restrictions, on the importation or exportation of Basic Food Commodities in South Africa. |
|
|
NTB-000-073 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2009-07-23 |
South Africa: Ministry of Trade |
Malawi |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
South African government has monopoly on trade in Tea |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Africa reported that the applied tariff rate for tea imported from SADC countries is zero. Apart from WTO compatible SPS regulations there are no other technical barriers, including quantitative restrictions, on the importation or exportation of tea in South Africa. |
|
|
NTB-000-074 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2009-07-23 |
South Africa: Ministry of Trade |
Malawi |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
South African Government has monopoly on trade in tobacco |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
South Afric areported that the applied tariff rate for tobacco imported from SADC countries is zero. Apart from WTO compatible SPS regulations there are no other technical barriers, including quantitative restrictions, on the importation or exportation of tobacco in South Africa. |
|
|
NTB-000-126 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import
Policy/Regulatory |
2009-07-26 |
Eswatini: Ministry of Trade |
Eswatini |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Single channel marketing for sugar and sugar products. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Swaziland reported that the status quo remains because the Sugar Act has not been reviewed. |
|
|
NTB-000-101 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2009-07-26 |
Zimbabwe: Ministry of Agriculture |
South Africa |
Resolved
2010-11-22 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zimbabwe has single marketing channel for basic commodities. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe reported that this is no longer obtaining. |
|
|
NTB-000-546 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2010-09-01 |
Zimbabwe: Harare offices |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2016-08-24 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zimbabwe has too many agencies issuing agricultural Permits, thereby giving problems to those who would want to obtain them, for example you have to go to gugunyana offices then you go to Mazowe Plant and Quarantine offices then also you have to go to AMA (agricultural marketing authority) this process we feel its too long why cant it be done under one roof, or one just live your application then the move around into different offices is done within the office bearers |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe reported that most of the issues are of policy nature therefore awareness programmes with relevant stakeholders and government agencies will be undertaken . |
|
|
NTB-001-002 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2021-01-27 |
Zambia: Kariba |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2021-01-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Zambia Revenue Authority has produced a statutory Instrument (SI NO 115 OF 2020 which prohibits exportation of certain products to neighboring countries e.g Zimbabwe. Trade has been going on well between Zimbabwe and Zambia without challenges and if there was need for commodities to exported or imported with license or permits traders have been abiding as required by Law. Zambia Revenue Authority Kariba is holding trucks intended to cross to Zimbabwe for clearance because of this Statutory Instrument, The statutory Instrument is not clear on the reasons or basis for its effect, It has come harder for the traders as the situation will force them to use chirundu which will then be costly for them to drive back to chirundu, whereas those goods in trucks which are in Zambia have been pre cleared in Zimbabwe awaiting PE as the normal way . |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Zambia Revenue Authority facilitated the clearance of the consignments that were already at Kariba Border Post. Importers/Exporters/Transporters were urged to be guided by the Statutory Instrument on the routes they are required to use when carrying certain cargo.
Due to the nature of the current situation, those already at Kariba were allowed to proceed. |
|
|
Products:
|
1905.3: - Sweet biscuits; waffles and wafers :, 0401: Milk and cream, not concentrated nor containing added sugar or other sweetening matter. and 34: CHAPTER 34 - SOAP, ORGANIC SURFACE-ACTIVE AGENTS, WASHING PREPARATIONS, LUBRICATING PREPARATIONS, ARTIFICIAL WAXES, PREPARED WAXES, POLISHING OR SCOURING PREPARATIONS, CANDLES AND SIMILAR ARTICLES, MODELLING PASTES, ‘DENTAL WAXES’ AND DENTAL PREPARATIONS |
|
|
NTB-001-078 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import
Policy/Regulatory |
2022-06-13 |
Kenya: Mombasa sea port |
|
Resolved
2023-07-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The government of South Sudan through the Ministry of Transport on 25 Feb 2022 had request the government of Kenya through the Ministry of Transport to facilitate the clearing of all South Sudan cargo at Nairobi Dry Port by moving all containerize cargo by rail and to be cleared at a Private Container Freight Stations (CFS) Autoport Freight Terminals Ltd. When the directive was implemented on 13 June 2022, Stakeholders and the private sector in particulars did not appreciate the move and it see as monopolistic in nature and it did increase the cost of doing business for South Sudan importers, This was brought to the attention of the Ministry of Trade and Industry South Sudan which is the line ministry, The ministry of trade communicated to ministry of transport South Sudan on the implication raise by the private on the cost of import and the monopoly fact, after the consultation between the two ministry in South Sudan, The minister of Trade and Industry wrote two communication letters to the Ministry of Trade Kenya on 23rd May 2022 and Ministry of Transport Kenya on 13 June 2022. However, all the communication had not been responded to from Kenya ministries mention, on 28 July 2022 Members of Parliament summon the ministries of Trade and Transport and resolve to Suspend relocation of South Sudan Cargo via Nairobi to protect South Sudanese and the Minister of Transport South Sudan was requested to revoke his letter to the Ministry of Transport Kenya to allow South Sudanese cargo owner to clear their goods directly from the Port of Mombasa. On 28 July 2022 the Ministry of Transport South Sudan wrote to his counterpart in Kenya requesting the suspension of his previous letter dated 25 Feb 2022. All those communications did not bear fruit on trade facilitation update. Unfortunately on 4th October 2022 the Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing, Urban Development and Public Works. Wrote a letter to the National Treasury and Planning Kenya informing the Cabinet Secretary on not receiving any formal communication from South Sudan Government and for his guidance all South Sudanese cargo is to be rail and cleared at Nairobi.
|
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The 42nd SCTIFI noted that Kenya reiterated Her commitment to facilitating the transportation of RSS people and cargo through a letter dated 13th December 2022 addressed to the Minister for Transport South Sudan informing him of a presidential directive on clearance of goods and other attendant operational issues at the port of Mombasa copied to all concerned MDAs of Kenya which is being followed to date. Hence the NTB is resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-112 |
1.2. Government monopoly in export/import |
2023-01-01 |
Uganda: Ministry of Finance |
Kenya |
Resolved
2024-03-09 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Uganda Denial of Market Access to EAC Partner States Under Preferential Treatment by charging full CET of 35% to juices origination from Kenya transferred to Uganda by Bidcoro. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 43rd SCTIFI the Republic of Uganda informed the meeting that the company Bidcoro was under a country-specific duty remission scheme to import raw materials for the manufacture of fruit juice from September 2021.
Kenya informed the meeting that the company is no longer gazetted under the country-specific DRS
The meeting therefore agreed that the NTB is resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-511 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-03-14 |
Tanzania: Ministry of Transport |
Kenya |
Resolved
2012-06-01 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya tourist vans are not allowed to enter Tanzania. They are required to off load tourists to Tanzania registered vans. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 1 June 2012, Tanzania reported that, Tourist vans from Kenya are allowed to enter into Tanzania as foreign vans provided they have C32 formerly known as C36. A van carrying below 9 passengers are allowed free for 7 days. Van with 10 and above passengers are categorized as commercial vans and required as per Transit Act, 1995 to pay US$ 16 per axles in every 100 kms.
Tanzania advises Partner states to adhere to requirements for entry into another Partner State to avoid delays and inconveniences. Tourist vans should make sure they check all requirements and have fulfilled them before they set off for Tanzania. |
|
|
NTB-000-524 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-08-06 |
Zimbabwe: At road blocks |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Zimbabwe road traffic authorities are enforcing vehicle equipment regulations that pertain only to their own country and are not harmonized with other countries.
An example of this is for a truck to display its tare and gross mass on the exterior of the vehicle, in numbers and letters of a particular size. This requirement is not the same as for other countries. The Zimbabwe authorities should accept the certificates of roadworthiness from other countries. Zimbabwe should not harass drivers for such issues. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13 September 2013, FESARTA reported that they had subsequently received a letter from the Ministry of Transport, Communications and Infrastructural Development, directed to the Zimbabwe Republic Police, instructing the police to accept the standards of South African vehicles. FESARTA believes that this letter will also indirectly apply to vehicles from countries other than South Africa entering Zimbabwe. Therefore, FESARTA recommends that NTBs 524 and 563 be considered resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-528 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-09-10 |
Zimbabwe: Nyamapanda |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2015-06-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Port Health at Nyamapanda, Zimbabwe, has issued a notice to the effect that all goods transiting the border are to be inspected, from 10th September.
The inspection in itself is not a problem.
However, a charge is to be levied for this inspection. This is unacceptable.
Port Health is a government department, which has a duty to perform, in the course of its daily work.
This duty is part of Port Health's daily workload and it budgeted for from Central Government.
Health inspections are done in the interests of the country and are not asked for by the transporter.
There should be no extra charge for this.
What would happen if every government department charged citizens for carrying out their daily duties? |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the meeting of COMESA Heads of Customs Sub- Committee held in Nairobi on 19-20 June 2015, Zimbabwe reported that the NTB was an internal control measure and what was required was sensitization of stakeholders on various import and export requirements. This was resolved at the 31st COMESA Trade and Customs Committee meeting held on 7-10 September 2015. |
|
|
NTB-000-531 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-09-28 |
Botswana: Kazungula Ferry |
Botswana |
Resolved
2016-08-15 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Chobe municipality is charging foreign transporters a fee to pass through its area of jurisdiction.
There is no justification for any municipality to charge transporters for travelling on the national roads through their areas.
The municipalities do not provide services to the transporters and the national roads are maintained by the national roads authorities.
This practice was started by Zambian municipalities and was halted by the Zambian government.
However, some Zambian municipalities continue to charge.
The practice also does not align with the RECs requirement that the transporters should pay road user charges and not other charges. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Focal Point advised that the Chobe Municipality no longer charges foreign transporters the fees. |
|
|
NTB-000-549 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-11-01 |
Mozambique: Maputo |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Matola Council, near Maputo, is requiring transporters to purchase a permit to enter its area.
The permit costs in the region of US$80 per trip.
It is not acceptable for a municipality to charge transporters to enter its area.
Transporters pay road user charges for the wear and tear they cause to the roads.
Furthermore, they purchase services and goods from the area and so increase trade. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Mozambique reported that road user charges were charged at national level and not by Municipalities and that such charges are not legal. Mozambique requested FESRATA to provide proof of payment on the said charges as this is not legal in Mozambique. Proof of payment is provided in the online system. It was therefore agreed that this NTB be resolved and that FESRATA should report any such further charges to Mozambique authorities. |
|
|
NTB-000-535 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-10-12 |
South Africa: Vioolsdrift |
South Africa |
Resolved
2014-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by the Road Freight Association.
The South African Cross-Border Road Transport Agency is requiring cross-border permits for two vehicles to take one load from South Africa to Namibia.
One permit is required to take the load from Johannesburg or Cape Town to Upington, and another permit to take the load from Upington to Namibia.
The Truck taking the load from Johannesburg or Cape Town to Upington should not require a cross-border permit, since the transport is being done wholly in South Africa.
The CBRTA quotes the following excerpt from the Act: "“cross-border road transport” means the transport of passengers for reward or the transport of freight to or from the Republic crossing or intending to cross its borders into the territory of another state or in transit across the Republic or the territory of another state with a vehicle on a public road; (xv)"
If this clause means that two permits are required, then the clause must be changed.
In the meantime, a moratorium to remove the requirement for two permits, must be put in place. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 10 April 2014, Namibia Focal Point reported that the explanation provided by South Africa Focal Point confirming that CBRTA was acting within the legal framework was adequate evidence to have this NTB resolved. This NTB is therefore resolved on the grounds that the CBRTA action was legal. |
|
|
NTB-000-548 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-11-30 |
Botswana: Kazungula Ferry |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-03-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Botswana Department of Veterinary Services is requiring a permit for agricultural products to be purchased in Gaborone and for the original to be carried on the truck.
This procedure is time-consuming and inefficient.
The process should be done electronically and the truck carry an electronic copy. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 25 March 2015, Botswana Focal Point reported that transit permits are now issued in various Veterinary Offices countrywide. Issuance of such permits has now been decentralized. Botswana still requires that permits original (hard) copies MUST always accompany consignment. It must be noted that 1 consignment requires 1 permit which is neither time consuming nor inefficient. Introduction of electronic copies (for convenience) is still being considered. With this explanation, and that transporters can obtain permits easily, the NTB should be considered resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-553 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-11-20 |
Zambia: Mbala town |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Mbala town in Zambia is levying a parking fee on all transporters.
Transporters are not allowed to park along the roadside, but have to use ZAMESCO's parking yard, at a cost of US$36 per day.
This is not acceptable as the transporters are not given any alternative and the parking fee is high. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism Meeting to Launch the SMS Reporting Tool held from 9-10 April 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia, Zambia reported that transporters are allowed to park along the road side. |
|
|
NTB-000-575 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2013-03-14 |
Zimbabwe: Beitbridge |
South Africa |
Resolved
2017-06-09 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The old bridge at Beitbridge cannot be opened to traffic because of an existing agreement between the government of Zimbabwe and a private sector company.
It is accepted that it is an old bridge and that it may not be safe for many heavy trucks using it at one time. However, there is a railway line over it and there does not seem to be any refusal to allow trains to use it.
It could be used by private motorists, so freeing the new bridge for heavy goods.
There seems to be no justification to renew the existing agreement. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe reported that the two Governments of Zimbabwe and South Africa had agreed that the old Bridge remain closed following commissioning of the new bridge that is functioning properly without congestion. |
|
|
NTB-000-562 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-12-10 |
Kenya: Throughout Kenya |
Kenya |
Resolved
2014-07-03 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Kenya National Highways Authority (KENHA) is enforcing the axle load limits, rather than the GCM limit for the vehicle combination.
This is seriously compromising the ability of the transporters in Kenya to operated effectively and the Kenya Transporters Association (KTA) has taken the matter to court.
Some comments by the KTA:
1. KENHA is implementing this axle load rule on an axle by axle case rather than group axles. We realize the official position is group axle because when our enraged members stormed the Mariakani weighbridge yesterday, they promptly switched to weighing on group axles and giving a 5% tolerance, a matter that had hitherto not happened.
2. Their axle weights are 8-16-24 rather than 8-18-24 as the case is said to be in Tanzania. To comply here means one can’t optimize on his load.
3. The Traffic Act in Kenya requires an offender in this case is taken to court, fined and then made to redistribute cargo so that each axle is in conformity before the truck can proceed. The complication arises when the cargo is containerized transit goods which cant be opened sice continer is sealed and opening is criminal!
4. Similar complications arise in the case of liquid cargo which moves rapidly even when truck is being weighed or “sandy” like cargo such as clinker and the like which shifts depending on road terrain/condition or upon braking.
5. Our members are now forced to load 22 to 24 tons of the above cargo instead of the normal 27 tons. Unfortunately the overheads do not come down at all and they are now left with no option but to raise their rates by a similar margin. The question is whether our corridor and hinterland can afford such excessive costs.
FESARTA has drawn up a proposal to solve the problem and it is attached to this complaint. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 03 July 2014 FESARTA Kenya was about to sign a Load Charter with its transporters, which covered this issue therefore the NTB should be considered resolved. |
|
English
Français
